The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1887-02-23

jurisdiction under Article I, Section
~, OF the Constitution, as the juris.
diction there conferred is conditioned
expressly upon the fact that the judg-
ment does not exceed the limit men.
toned.
Article w, Section 18, Of the Con.
stitution, confers on the Courts of
General Sessions exclusive jurisdlc.
tlon over all criminal cases (which
/ shall not bo otherwise provided by
law" Now when the Constitution
was adopted with these two sections
in it. inasmuch as Justices Of the
peace or other officers authorized by
law could have jurisdiction only in
cases where the punishment was lin.
tied, as specified in Article /, Section
IS, and inasmuch as the punishment
OF petit larceny was not thus limited,
the Jurisdiction of petit larceny, twas
not otherwise provided by law and
consequently under Article Nv, Sec.
tlon l8, the Court OF General Ses-
sions had exclusive Jurisdiction. Has
that Jurisdiction been lost since the
adoption of the Constitution 1t
could only have been lost by some
provision Of law enacted since the
adoption Of the Constitution con.
fcrred Jurisdiction upon some other
Court, because Article w, Section IS,
provides that the Court of General
Sessions shall have exclusive iuris.
diction in all criminal cases (which
shall not be otherwise provided by
law"
Has there been such provision?
II the General Assembly had since
limited the punishment of petty lar.
ceny as mentioned in Article | /, Sec
ton -, they, under the language of
the Act. would have conferred ex.
elusive Jurisdiction upon trial justices
and consequently would have ousted
the jurisdiction Of the General Ses.
sions, as by such Act punishment in
such cases would have been "other.
wise provided by law" But no such
Act has been passed, and because no
such Act has been passed this Court
decided in the State VS.. Williams,
that the Court Of General Sessions
still has Jurisdiction.
| Section S26 Of the General Stat
utcs, however, expressly confers ju.
rlsdlctlon in cases of petit larceny
upon trial justices, Notwithstanding
the fact that the punishment has
never been limited to a fine Of 500
and imprisonment to thirty days. If
this Act is of force it has certainly
enlarged the jurisdiction of Trial JUS
tice Courts beyond its constitutional
provisions. Can this be done2 1t
might be that it would be competent
for the General Assembly to confer
incidental po-ers, and perhaps ad.
ditioncl duties upon Court organ,
lied under the Constitution, besides
those mentioned therein, but it could
hardly enlarge its powers as to the
matters for which it was expressly
constituted. Here the Trial Justice
Courts have been organized under
the constitution, with certain powers
conferred by that instrumental in Grim
lnal cases, this rjarisdiction being de-
pendent upon the character of the
punishment to be inflicted. This, it
seems to US, is in effect confning
these Courts to such cases, and the
General Assembly would have no
power to extend their jurisdiction be-
yond this constitutional boundary.
But it may be said that the Act
comforting the jurisdiction on Trial
Justices necessarily-proprio rigore.-
reduces the punishment of petit lar.
ceny to the limit mentioned, because
the trial Justice cannot, under the
Constitution, sentence beyond that
limit. This is met again by the
State vs.. Williams, supra, which, as
as we have said, decides that the pun
lshmcnt has not been reduced, and
consequently the Court of General
Sessions has jurisdiction. So that
If the two positions be correct, we
have the strange anomaly Of the same
offence being snbject to two different
punishments. depending upon the
Court in which the prisoner may hap.
pen to be tried and convicted. Upon
the whole our conclusion is, that
trial Justices, in the absence of any
law limiting the punishment to $1O0
fine or thirty days imprisonment for
petit larceny, and without jurisdic.
Lion. ....
1t is the Judgment, therefore, of
this Court that the judgment of the
Circuit Court be reversed.
Mr.. II. G. Patton, who is a grad
uate of the South Carolina College
law class, and who WAS admitte. to
The Bar q year ago, took this case
before the Supreme Court lie rep.
resented the defendant and as the
result of his argument the Court rem.
dored this important decision.
| W. T.. G.